The High Court reaffirms that, following the Supreme Court’s directions, contempt proceedings relating to an order under challenge before the Supreme Court must be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. This maintains the established precedent and clarifies procedural conduct for courts and litigants until the Supreme Court resolves the substantive challenge.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | COPC/207/2022 of SATISH KUMAR AND ORS Vs RAJNEESH AND ANR |
| CNR | HPHC010151422022 |
| Date of Registration | 07-07-2022 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms directions issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025 |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law – Contempt of Court |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Court contempt proceedings may continue when the challenged order is under consideration by Supreme Court |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court is not justified in proceeding with contempt proceedings for alleged violation of an order that is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had directed such contempt proceedings to be kept in abeyance during the appeal. Consequently, the High Court must close the contempt case with liberty to the aggrieved party to revive proceedings if needed after the Supreme Court’s decision. This approach balances respect for appellate processes and avoids prejudice during the pendency of higher judicial consideration. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court Order dated 07.10.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025 (State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar and others) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s specific direction regarding abeyance of contempt during pendency of appeal |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The proceeding arose out of an alleged contempt related to an order under challenge before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the High Court not to proceed with contempt while the appeal is pending. The High Court, accordingly, disposed of the contempt petition, granting liberty for revival if warranted after the outcome of the appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; all future benches of the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and subordinate courts outside Himachal Pradesh |
| Follows | Supreme Court Order in Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025 (State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar and others) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that High Courts must comply with the Supreme Court’s directions to keep contempt proceedings in abeyance when the validity of the order is under consideration in appeal.
- Explicitly clarifies that parties retain the liberty to revive contempt proceedings after the Supreme Court’s final decision, thus ensuring no prejudice to the party seeking contempt.
- This judgment provides a procedural template for handling similar situations involving parallel appellate processes and contempt actions.
- The order underscores that non-compliance with Supreme Court directions in such scenarios may itself amount to judicial impropriety.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court was informed of an express Supreme Court direction, via its order dated 7.10.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025, instructing all contempt proceedings pertaining to the impugned order to be kept in abeyance for the duration of the appeal.
- The High Court acknowledged the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s directions and concluded it would not be justified in proceeding with contempt for violation of an order presently under appellate scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
- Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the contempt petition, with express liberty for the petitioners to seek revival subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings.
- The judgment recognises the principle that parallel contempt adjudication should not prejudice the appellate remedy or pre-empt a final higher court determination.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
No explicit arguments reproduced in the judgment.
Respondent/State
Placed on record the Supreme Court’s order directing abeyance of contempt proceedings during pendency of appeal.
Factual Background
The contempt petition arose from an alleged violation of a High Court order, which was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal (Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025—State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar and others), the Supreme Court passed an order on 7.10.2025 directing the High Court to keep contempt proceedings in abeyance. The High Court, following this directive, closed the contempt matter with leave to revive if necessary post disposal of the Supreme Court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment concerns the procedural law relating to contempt of court and the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court. The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s directions but did not discuss or interpret any statutory provisions or constitutional clauses further; the judgment turned solely on compliance with higher court instructions regarding contempt proceedings during an appeal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment; both judges agreed and signed the order.
Procedural Innovations
- Provides a clear procedural approach for High Courts faced with contempt petitions while the impugned order is challenged before the Supreme Court: to keep contempt in abeyance in compliance with Supreme Court directions and close the petition with liberty to revive later.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.